Page 10 of 14 FirstFirst ... 67891011121314 LastLast
Results 361 to 400 of 539

Thread: Anyone want to help make socionics scientific?

  1. #361
    Haikus thehotelambush's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    TIM
    LII
    Posts
    8,113
    Mentioned
    287 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Subteigh View Post
    What observation would prove Socionics to be false?

    If you cannot answer that, it may show that you don't know how to show Socionics to be true.
    (That is not intended as a criticism at others: it is a question I have asked of myself during many sleepless nights)
    You could show that someone is good at Fe and Ti, or Se and Ni, etc.

    You could show that someone's abilities or values changed from one type to another over time (doesn't necessarily disprove socionics but the hypothesis that types remain the same)

    You could show that someone has positive reactions to conflicting elements such as Te and Ti, Fe and Fi, etc. (This one seems pretty self-evident though since they are opposite priorities.)

    In practice the model is still being refined and we deal with minor flaws (such as, misunderstandings of particular functions or dichotomies) by refining it. I haven't noticed any fatal contradictions as yet.

  2. #362
    Haikus thehotelambush's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    TIM
    LII
    Posts
    8,113
    Mentioned
    287 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sbbds View Post
    It’s just because since you never mentioned or emphasized the empirical measures part, people assume you weren’t even considering using empirical data at all. We thought you didn’t have that side to your experiment.

    And technically, since you haven’t fleshed that side out more yet, we still don’t have anything satisfactory yet. This would require a lot more discussion though, and hopefully not preceding actual hopeful leads to have a chance of carrying it out.
    Basically yeah

    Quote Originally Posted by ajsindri View Post
    All schools in socionics are measuring the same 16 types, but with different methods. If someone is typed with two methods, it makes sense to compare the results to see if they are consistent. If they don't agree, that means at least one diagnosis is incorrect.

    I not only want to compare type outputs of any two given approaches to socionics, but all their parts as well.
    I'm not sure how your approach addresses this - unless I'm missing something it's currently only in terms of type dichotomies. If you expand to 4/2-groups and conditional probabilities then it could maybe compare all possible approaches.

    Also, this kind of thing may be a bit overkill - for example you can just as easily take two traits that are conjectured to actually coincide, like Ti suggestive and Fe leading. For this all you have to do is check how well the operationalizations correlate.

    E.g., have the question "do you have difficulty organizing your thought process?"

    and "do you naturally and confidently express your emotional state to others?"

    etc. If you find correlations then that would be decent evidence for socionics.

    Quote Originally Posted by Karatos View Post
    To answer hotelambush's question: I think it's wishful thinking to think that the scientific community will revise the scientific method soon because logical/empirical positivism (ie. the view that only empirically verifiable evidence suffices to justify beliefs) generally prevails in the scientific community. This philosophy is practically hardwired in the scientific method because scientific observations ultimately have the final say in the body of knowledge produced by scientific inquiry. Furthermore, it's generally been the trend that psychology has moved from the more abstract (Freud, Jung, James) to the more concrete (neuroscience).
    They may reconsider if someone makes significant progress on scientific questions using other means (e.g. rational/mathematical means).
    Last edited by thehotelambush; 12-20-2018 at 09:36 AM.

  3. #363

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    3,513
    Mentioned
    252 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by thehotelambush View Post
    You could show that someone is good at Fe and Ti, or Se and Ni, etc.

    You could show that someone's abilities or values changed from one type to another over time (doesn't necessarily disprove socionics but the hypothesis that types remain the same)

    You could show that someone has positive reactions to conflicting elements such as Te and Ti, Fe and Fi, etc. (This one seems pretty self-evident though since they are opposite priorities.)
    Erm, haven't that already been done? Of course, it depends on what you mean by Fe, Ti, Te, etc.
    Quote Originally Posted by A.Augustinavichiute
    The goal of our work is to try to penetrate into the models of the psyche projected by Jung, to show which positions and categories can be considered completely proved and irrefutable.
    https://translate.google.com/transla...t.html&prev=_t

  4. #364
    Haikus thehotelambush's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    TIM
    LII
    Posts
    8,113
    Mentioned
    287 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Singu View Post
    Erm, haven't that already been done? Of course, it depends on what you mean by Fe, Ti, Te, etc.
    Nope

  5. #365
    f.k.a Oprah sbbds's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    TIM
    SLE
    Posts
    2,181
    Mentioned
    151 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ajsindri View Post
    It doesn't really matter which dichotomies you chose as long as they generate the complete 32 Reinin+Tencer set first. I chose 3 orbital dichotomies (extrovert/introvert, irrational/rational, democratic/aristocratic) 1 reinin only (intuitive/sensory) and one Tencer only (abstract base/involved base).
    Don’t you feel like starting with Reinins instead of just a couple dichotomies from Model A is too complicated?

    And unnecessary since it isn’t associated with the basic theory really. Should spend time focusing on basic theory and ITR first.

  6. #366
    The Original EII Is Not Necessarily The Best Subteigh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    TIM
    Enlightened
    Posts
    16,508
    Mentioned
    316 Post(s)
    Tagged
    4 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ajsindri View Post
    If you had a large network of theoretical relationships that are consistent with reality, that is meaningful. If you didn't like the socionics explanation for why those correlations exist, you'd have to come up with an alternative explanation that has more utility. The more complex the correlation structure, the harder it is to invent a fictional narrative that fits the facts until it becomes impossible, and the only explanation that fits is the what is actually happening.
    Quote Originally Posted by thehotelambush View Post
    You could show that someone is good at Fe and Ti, or Se and Ni, etc.

    You could show that someone's abilities or values changed from one type to another over time (doesn't necessarily disprove socionics but the hypothesis that types remain the same)

    You could show that someone has positive reactions to conflicting elements such as Te and Ti, Fe and Fi, etc. (This one seems pretty self-evident though since they are opposite priorities.)

    In practice the model is still being refined and we deal with minor flaws (such as, misunderstandings of particular functions or dichotomies) by refining it. I haven't noticed any fatal contradictions as yet.
    Socionics may only show that certain behaviours can be grouped together with other behaviours that are considered similar. That in itself does not mean that the eight Information Elements exist in reality.

    What Socionics conjectures about intertype relations is distinct from the types themselves, which could be tested, but first, the types would have to be well-defined and there would have to be a rigorous method for determining an individual's type.

  7. #367
    f.k.a Oprah sbbds's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    TIM
    SLE
    Posts
    2,181
    Mentioned
    151 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Subteigh View Post
    Socionics may only show that certain behaviours can be grouped together with other behaviours that are considered similar. That in itself does not mean that the eight Information Elements exist in reality.
    Overall you can test for whether or not the concrete claims made by Socionics are generally true, which is basically the same thing. Seeing as it’s a philosophical interpretation of reality anyway.

  8. #368
    The Original EII Is Not Necessarily The Best Subteigh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    TIM
    Enlightened
    Posts
    16,508
    Mentioned
    316 Post(s)
    Tagged
    4 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sbbds View Post
    Overall you can test for whether or not the concrete claims made by Socionics are generally true, which is basically the same thing. Seeing as it’s a philosophical interpretation of reality anyway.
    Which concrete claims are those?

  9. #369
    f.k.a Oprah sbbds's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    TIM
    SLE
    Posts
    2,181
    Mentioned
    151 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Subteigh View Post
    Which concrete claims are those?
    Claims made e.g. in type descriptions, in IE descriptions, and any “studies” made by socionists previously where they derived ideas like health groups.

  10. #370
    The Original EII Is Not Necessarily The Best Subteigh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    TIM
    Enlightened
    Posts
    16,508
    Mentioned
    316 Post(s)
    Tagged
    4 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sbbds View Post
    Claims made e.g. in type descriptions, in IE descriptions, and any “studies” made by socionists previously where they derived ideas like health groups.
    ah. I thought it was odd how you distinguished "concrete claims" as though they were distinct from "claims".

    There's a danger of not disproving claims because they seem so obviously false as to not merit disproving, and of not proving claims because they seem self-evident.

  11. #371
    f.k.a Oprah sbbds's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    TIM
    SLE
    Posts
    2,181
    Mentioned
    151 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Subteigh View Post
    ah. I thought it was odd how you distinguished "concrete claims" as though they were distinct from "claims".

    There's a danger of not disproving claims because they seem so obviously false as to not merit disproving, and of not proving claims because they seem self-evident.
    That’s really how most of the types and facets of Model A are defined though. I mean how else would you test for them.

  12. #372
    The Original EII Is Not Necessarily The Best Subteigh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    TIM
    Enlightened
    Posts
    16,508
    Mentioned
    316 Post(s)
    Tagged
    4 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sbbds View Post
    That’s really how most of the types and facets of Model A are defined though. I mean how else would you test for them.
    In the short to medium-term, there is probably little that can be done. But any evidence from the world of psychology that shows that distinct types exist rather than collections of traits would be a step in the right direction. And any evidence that would indicate that Socionics intertype relations are true would also be be a good sign (for example, you might expect pairs of people with low Conscientiousness to have especially beneficial relationships).

  13. #373
    ajsindri's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    TIM
    IEI
    Posts
    511
    Mentioned
    70 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    @Subteigh, a lot of people bring up the Barnum Effect when I tell them about socionics: the possibility that socionics is like astrology, in that there seems to be different personality types people really believe in, but they are all so vague that they fit anyone, and are meaningless. Because of this, I've tested this out on a few people. If I can decide their type, and I don't mind burning my credibility with them, I will read them their conflictor profile with conviction, so I'm actually biasing the results in the wrong direction. Everyone I've done this to has flat out told me I am wrong and it does not describe them. By contrast, when I read someone a profile of what I actually think they are, about half the people say it fits them really well and the other half say a lot of it fits them but there are details they disagree with.

    If socionics is not describing real difference between people, how do you explain that?
    Check out my socionics work [link]

  14. #374
    The Original EII Is Not Necessarily The Best Subteigh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    TIM
    Enlightened
    Posts
    16,508
    Mentioned
    316 Post(s)
    Tagged
    4 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ajsindri View Post
    @Subteigh, a lot of people bring up the Barnum Effect when I tell them about socionics: the possibility that socionics is like astrology, in that there seems to be different personality types people really believe in, but they are all so vague that they fit anyone, and are meaningless. Because of this, I've tested this out on a few people. If I can decide their type, and I don't mind burning my credibility with them, I will read them their conflictor profile with conviction, so I'm actually biasing the results in the wrong direction. Everyone I've done this to has flat out told me I am wrong and it does not describe them. By contrast, when I read someone a profile of what I actually think they are, about half the people say it fits them really well and the other half say a lot of it fits them but there are details they disagree with.

    If socionics is not describing real difference between people, how do you explain that?
    I don't dispute that it is possible to be meaningfully descriptive about an individual's personality.

    The issues are, as Singu has covered many times in this thread:
    1) is this merely descriptive, rather than explanatory?
    2) do distinct types exist, or do people merely fit on a bell curve?
    3) do the 16 Socionics types accurately represent the whole of human personality?

  15. #375
    f.k.a Oprah sbbds's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    TIM
    SLE
    Posts
    2,181
    Mentioned
    151 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Meh you deduced 2 and 3 yourself @Subteigh , no taking gold stars home on Singu’s behalf.

  16. #376
    The Original EII Is Not Necessarily The Best Subteigh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    TIM
    Enlightened
    Posts
    16,508
    Mentioned
    316 Post(s)
    Tagged
    4 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sbbds View Post
    Meh you deduced 2 and 3 yourself @Subteigh , no taking gold stars home on Singu’s behalf.
    Well, if I didn't steal them from him, I stole them from someone else. Although they may have stolen them from me.

  17. #377
    ajsindri's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    TIM
    IEI
    Posts
    511
    Mentioned
    70 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Subteigh View Post
    I don't dispute that it is possible to be meaningfully descriptive about an individual's personality.

    The issues are, as Singu has covered many times in this thread:
    1) is this merely descriptive, rather than explanatory?
    2) do distinct types exist, or do people merely fit on a bell curve?
    3) do the 16 Socionics types accurately represent the whole of human personality?
    And as I've said many times, the only way to find out is to do empirical testing within the scientific method.
    Check out my socionics work [link]

  18. #378
    Haikus thehotelambush's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    TIM
    LII
    Posts
    8,113
    Mentioned
    287 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Subteigh View Post
    Socionics may only show that certain behaviours can be grouped together with other behaviours that are considered similar. That in itself does not mean that the eight Information Elements exist in reality.

    What Socionics conjectures about intertype relations is distinct from the types themselves, which could be tested, but first, the types would have to be well-defined and there would have to be a rigorous method for determining an individual's type.
    If you had a reasonably good enough questionnaire you could verify (statistically) some correlations that are implied by socionics, without having a 100% way of determining type. This is simply the limitation of the behavioral psychology approach (as opposed to the other neurological approach). Actually, you could apply it using a particular socionist's typings, to show that they are seeing something real. You could then use whatever correlations you find to make a questionnaire. IR is harder because you'd need more people to get the same confidence.

    Showing "that the eight Information Elements exist in reality" is a different ball game.

  19. #379
    ajsindri's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    TIM
    IEI
    Posts
    511
    Mentioned
    70 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Subteigh View Post
    1) is [socionics] merely descriptive, rather than explanatory?..
    Except this. Obviously socionics is proposing explainations. We need to verify if those explanations are true, but socionics is an explanitory model. Anyone who doesn't understand this has not done their basic research and should stop advocating their ignorant opinions. The reason this is a valid criticism of the big 5 is because it is a brute force factor analysis model. SOCIONICS IS NOT A FACTOR ANALYSIS MODEL. It has other issues, but not lack of explanation.
    Last edited by ajsindri; 12-21-2018 at 03:01 AM.
    Check out my socionics work [link]

  20. #380
    f.k.a Oprah sbbds's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    TIM
    SLE
    Posts
    2,181
    Mentioned
    151 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    There is an explanation, but it’s philosophical mainly and the parts that aren’t philosophical need to be verified and related to mainstream science.

  21. #381
    f.k.a Oprah sbbds's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    TIM
    SLE
    Posts
    2,181
    Mentioned
    151 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by thehotelambush View Post
    If you had a reasonably good enough questionnaire you could verify (statistically) some correlations that are implied by socionics, without having a 100% way of determining type. This is simply the limitation of the behavioral psychology approach (as opposed to the other neurological approach). Actually, you could apply it using a particular socionist's typings, to show that they are seeing something real. You could then use whatever correlations you find to make a questionnaire. IR is harder because you'd need more people to get the same confidence.

    Showing "that the eight Information Elements exist in reality" is a different ball game.
    Sorry for the Se here; this isn’t directed at you but generally to the thread:

    I don’t really want to think about this unless we’re actually planning on doing it. I think we should find out some numbers like on what’s an acceptable sample size and success rate for this kind of study in behavioural psychology, and other limitations. I want to know what the scale of the project would need to be like.

  22. #382
    f.k.a Oprah sbbds's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    TIM
    SLE
    Posts
    2,181
    Mentioned
    151 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Unless you guys don’t want to actually do this or at least set up a thorough coherent plan. In which case I’m not helping anymore.

  23. #383
    f.k.a Oprah sbbds's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    TIM
    SLE
    Posts
    2,181
    Mentioned
    151 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Andreas View Post
    No need to sorry. You are in a right direction.

    I don't know how to plan a good DoE for this forum, because when I am trying to wonder about it, i 'see' many possibilities about what we can do for it. But when you asked about success rate, that's something that I personally should limit all that possibilities and try to make a small-sure step rather than big-unsure step.

    The only things that I am sure it can reduce the risk of failure when doing this project is, we should do vote in this forum (like what we do in superlatives this year) for pick 16 members (one for each type) of this forum, whom willing to join into this project to do typing for any materials that this project might offered to them. So each type should have a representative that being agreed by most members (no need to more than 50% or any number. Just majority). The next things like what material and experiments should be do later, is still unsure for me, especially because you need a number to scale the success rate. But I will keep my mind open to make DoE voluntarily here. Hope I found something later. But, yeah, this is what I am sure as a first step.
    ...

    First of all, I think people who don’t care about this are just not participating, which is most of the forum. It’s obviously been open to everybody this entire time already.

    Second of all, it’s wasting people’s time to try to involve them in something if you’re not sure if it will succeed nor even have anything more than an overly vague idea of how to make it happen so far.

  24. #384
    f.k.a Oprah sbbds's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    TIM
    SLE
    Posts
    2,181
    Mentioned
    151 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Andreas View Post

    Well, that's my problem too. To avoiding bias, it really needs all 16 types to 'sit' together when in a project. No matter whether they will care or not.

    out of topic ...
    Like in soccer, there should be 11 in-field players, 5 bench players, and one manager before the kick off, no matter whether they will win a match or lose. Even all 11 in-field players, not all of them are have attacking mentality. They must have one goalkeeper that can touch ball with hands when any players can't, some defenders that stay in back when everyone is in front to anticipating counter attack, some midfielders that distributing ball from back to front, and few attackers that focused on goal. Bench players, maybe they seems not care with success, but when there are tired or injured in-field player, they are being substitutes to keep their team on a right track. And a manager, that never kick or touch any ball in game, but overseeing all aspect when they are playing soccer, and be responsible for a success of a team.

    So do Socionics. The founders made this to explain how each types are important for this society. So, if now members whom interesting to join this project or this thread is still some types and not all, it doesn't mean it's enough. No. It isn't. 16 members that represents one of each types, are more important than 50 members that represent only some types. Should I need to explain why? I don't think so. You might know why, right?


    For people whom valuing time and effort, yes, it's wasting. But not all people are feeling wasted when facing failure.

    out of topic...
    for example, the famous youtube channel, failarmy. When capturing a fail is considering as a success.
    Even Space X are planning a fail maneuver before landing its Falcon 9 to understanding the possibilities of future water landing.

    I can work for success or for fail, depends on what purpose Socionics will go. So if the objective for this thread is for a success, then please follow the restriction to reduce risk of "unsure for will succeed". If this thread are being headed to test a failure, then go with a big step without caring other types, and I don't care if later in future this project might be successful but useless.

    I apologize for what I said.
    How will you know if each of the 16 people we’ve chosen to represent each of the types has been typed with scientific accuracy?

  25. #385
    f.k.a Oprah sbbds's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    TIM
    SLE
    Posts
    2,181
    Mentioned
    151 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Andreas View Post
    I don't say that all the 16 types that we've chosen has been typed with scientific accuracy. Because actually none of us never seeing any scientific approach to Socionics. It just to reduce the risk of failure because of bias.

    For example, if I am EII and I typed Mr. X, as 100% LSE, then all EII might have tendencies towards my own typing too because that's what our way of thinking, feel, sense, or instinctively respond to how Mr. X inform us when in typing. So there might be another EII that can say, "He might not LSE 100%, but just 70%, because there is 30% some of their face looks more like LIE rather than LSE." or another EII can say, "Okay, LSE, but just 20%. I can see his introvert side more than extrovert, so he might SLI 80% too." and many various possibilities in EII.

    But if we bring SLE to see that Mr. X, I believe that SLE have much different framework of information processing that might reveal something that EII can't understand from Mr. X, so it will be possible to said that "No, I believe that Mr. X is 0% LSE, he is not LSE. He is lying." and type another instead with another possibilities of types rather than LSE. Maybe LIE, SLI, SEE, anything that EII never can see or understand before.

    That's why doing vote is a small first step to make sure that this project will being run with all possible type frameworks (16 types, 32 if subtype matters too), before next we go to bring all this 16 volunteers into the next step, about scientifically typing. So, what I said was is still not scientifically accurate, but it a small step to make sure this project will be held with a low risk of bias.
    Right, we want to make sure a variety of people are collecting the information from people if possible. That’s a fair point Andreas.

  26. #386
    f.k.a Oprah sbbds's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    TIM
    SLE
    Posts
    2,181
    Mentioned
    151 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I’m feeling anxious and am starting to lose interest about this already @ajsindri . Anyway let me know by PM or something because I don’t always get pinged. Oh and if we’re doing this, you’d need to recruit people to do it with you in the Americas or English-speaking Europe first and foremost. I can’t effectively help you from where I am now in Asia.

    - Find out what usage rights are involved with this and how to navigate any red tape. Consult Gulenko or whoever owns “schools” for it.
    - Find out the real scale and what you’d need to carry out the experiments and support claims, what you’d need to make it valid enough for publishing in an actual psych or scientific journal ... ideally speaking. Consult people in the actual real field. See what they have to say.

    Then if it still seems within your means:
    - Maybe get like 4 people per Socionics type (2 per gender) at least to start to do mini tests on, and develop your criteria based on those. Do your math magic and see what you find. Also get different people to help you administer the typing criteria or testing.
    - Consult the pros in Eastern Europe and show them what you’ve got, if they can help or whatever, update them
    - Recalibrate your methods, test again, analysis

    Then you scope out labs / the means to actually carry out a full scale study with hundreds of people etc., including whatever else that entails.

    That’s the only way you with your means now can probably hope to make the whole theory of Socionics scientific all at once.

    Another way you could do it would be to just choose one or two unique easily falsifiable claims made by Socionics and go through the same process above to get your foot in the door faster, but the disadvantage of this is that we wouldn’t know if the entirety of Socionics is valid or not then, just a small part of it.

    So anyway you’re welcome, Merry Christmas.

    @squark @Adam Strange and other STEM oldfags please review this and I welcome any feedback ty

  27. #387
    f.k.a Oprah sbbds's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    TIM
    SLE
    Posts
    2,181
    Mentioned
    151 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Actually as I have mentioned I work in science/tech too but mostly just the dealing with people side or light research, plus I’m completely a noob. My bosses have no reason to trust me.

  28. #388
    The Original EII Is Not Necessarily The Best Subteigh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    TIM
    Enlightened
    Posts
    16,508
    Mentioned
    316 Post(s)
    Tagged
    4 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by thehotelambush View Post
    If you had a reasonably good enough questionnaire you could verify (statistically) some correlations that are implied by socionics, without having a 100% way of determining type. This is simply the limitation of the behavioral psychology approach (as opposed to the other neurological approach). Actually, you could apply it using a particular socionist's typings, to show that they are seeing something real. You could then use whatever correlations you find to make a questionnaire. IR is harder because you'd need more people to get the same confidence.

    Showing "that the eight Information Elements exist in reality" is a different ball game.
    Sure. I think if Socionics could be shown to have practical utility (e.g. by showing that its predictions about intertype relations could be shown to have some merit), that would at least show it is somewhat meaningful and perhaps superior to other typologies. But perhaps it doesn't need that.

  29. #389
    The Original EII Is Not Necessarily The Best Subteigh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    TIM
    Enlightened
    Posts
    16,508
    Mentioned
    316 Post(s)
    Tagged
    4 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ajsindri View Post
    Except this. Obviously socionics is proposing explainations. We need to verify if those explanations are true, but socionics is an explanitory model. Anyone who doesn't understand this has not done their basic research and should stop advocating their ignorant opinions. The reason this is a valid criticism of the big 5 is because it is a brute force factor analysis model. SOCIONICS IS NOT A FACTOR ANALYSIS MODEL. It has other issues, but not lack of explanation.
    I don't understand how Socionics in its current form is explanatory, rather than people saying they are more "this" than "that".

  30. #390
    ajsindri's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    TIM
    IEI
    Posts
    511
    Mentioned
    70 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Subteigh View Post
    I don't understand how Socionics in its current form is explanatory, rather than people saying they are more "this" than "that".
    Have you read Psychological Types by Jung and The World as Will and Representation by Schopenhauer? If you haven't, please go read those first, and then we can talk more about this.

    The World as Will and Representation sets up the Kantian basis for socionics, but the most pertinent section is Book 1 Section 12:
    Audio: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vm0Iwxlkrzo
    Text: https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_W...Book#.C2.A7_12
    Check out my socionics work [link]

  31. #391
    ajsindri's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    TIM
    IEI
    Posts
    511
    Mentioned
    70 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    @sbbds In the US, only a specific inventory can be copyrighted, so any Russian resource can be used as long as it is paraphrased. We need to finish the math work before the data can be analyzed. If you want to help with that, do you know linear algebra, group theory, statistics or any kind of programming?
    Check out my socionics work [link]

  32. #392
    f.k.a Oprah sbbds's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    TIM
    SLE
    Posts
    2,181
    Mentioned
    151 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ajsindri View Post
    @sbbds In the US, only a specific inventory can be copyrighted, so any Russian resource can be used as long as it is paraphrased. We need to finish the math work before the data can be analyzed. If you want to help with that, do you know linear algebra, group theory, statistics or any kind of programming?
    Ok so you are going to do that in the US. I am not good at figuring that kind of thing out so I’ll pass unless you really need it. Stats is most familiar. Are you saying you’ve already looked into the first points I listed up there?

  33. #393
    ajsindri's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    TIM
    IEI
    Posts
    511
    Mentioned
    70 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sbbds View Post
    - Find out the real scale and what you’d need to carry out the experiments and support claims, what you’d need to make it valid enough for publishing in an actual psych or scientific journal ... ideally speaking. Consult people in the actual real field. See what they have to say.
    I am actively working on this step.
    Check out my socionics work [link]

  34. #394
    f.k.a Oprah sbbds's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    TIM
    SLE
    Posts
    2,181
    Mentioned
    151 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ajsindri View Post
    I am actively working on this step.
    How?

    If you want help on this PM me or whatever. I wouldn’t pitch in with math work unless that’s been concluded first though.

  35. #395
    The Original EII Is Not Necessarily The Best Subteigh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    TIM
    Enlightened
    Posts
    16,508
    Mentioned
    316 Post(s)
    Tagged
    4 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ajsindri View Post
    Have you read Psychological Types by Jung and The World as Will and Representation by Schopenhauer? If you haven't, please go read those first, and then we can talk more about this.

    The World as Will and Representation sets up the Kantian basis for socionics, but the most pertinent section is Book 1 Section 12:
    Audio: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vm0Iwxlkrzo
    Text: https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_W...Book#.C2.A7_12
    I don't see how that is relevant.

  36. #396
    ajsindri's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    TIM
    IEI
    Posts
    511
    Mentioned
    70 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sbbds View Post
    How?.. I wouldn’t pitch in with math work unless that’s been concluded first though.
    I'm working with @thehotelambush and a few other friends on the group structure of socionics. I have a working model of the reinin dichotomy analysis. I just finished a psychometric statistics class and have already talked with the psychology faculty at my university. I have plans to make a beginner socionics YouTube tutorial with another friend, which will be a good time to consolidate different definitions about the same socionic objects, which needs to be done before testing them.

    / Thanks for being interested in helping. We probably won't be done with the math phase for at least another year. When we finish, I'll let you know.
    Check out my socionics work [link]

  37. #397
    The Original EII Is Not Necessarily The Best Subteigh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    TIM
    Enlightened
    Posts
    16,508
    Mentioned
    316 Post(s)
    Tagged
    4 Thread(s)

    Default

    I have the feeling in this thread that we each know what others mean when they refer to a Type or an Information Element, or at least, for all practical purposes (at least in the short term, not so much the long term where there is an ultimate desire to test the claims of Socionics), we have visualizations that are synonymous, and yet these visualizations are rather nebulous and prone to shifting in definition depending on the context, and having a tendency to being circular in terms of proof.

  38. #398
    ajsindri's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    TIM
    IEI
    Posts
    511
    Mentioned
    70 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Subteigh View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by ajsindri View Post
    Have you read Psychological Types by Jung and The World as Will and Representation by Schopenhauer? If you haven't, please go read those first, and then we can talk more about this.
    I don't see how that is relevant.
    Quote Originally Posted by Subteigh View Post
    I have the feeling in this thread that we each know what others mean when they refer to a Type or an Information Element, or at least, for all practical purposes (at least in the short term, not so much the long term where there is an ultimate desire to test the claims of Socionics), we have visualizations that are synonymous, and yet these visualizations are rather nebulous and prone to shifting in definition depending on the context, and having a tendency to being circular in terms of proof.
    Reading the seminal texts is vital because they are the basis of socionics. Augusta's Model accepts Jung's 8 types as correct, and then abstracts them into information, which is projected onto the 8 base types, creating 16 types of information metabolism and 16 intertype relations. I think socionics has done a great job explaining the rationale behind its unique advancement to Jungian typology. But if you have issue with the 8 information elements, you have to show that either the information abstractions, or Jung's original 8 base functions are incorrect. To do that, you have to read and understand Psychological Types, and that may also mean reading Jung's inspirations, especially Schopenhauer's World as Will and Representation, depending on the depth you want to understand these concepts at.


    Especially if you haven't read Psychological Types, of course this doesn't make sense to you, because you're not educated. I have done the research, but I don't have the time to teach you specifically, nor is it my responsibility. Reading these books is a lot of work, and I'm sorry there are not better educational resources available, but having to do your own independent research comes with the territory of pioneering theories.


    As far as I can tell, the reasoning is solid, and besides, it still needs to be demonstrated empirically. So in either case, the solution is fair scientific tests. Any social construction or archetypal forms should be observable in the data. We can't argue it out, the only way to settle this is to do the tests.
    Last edited by ajsindri; 12-23-2018 at 07:19 AM.
    Check out my socionics work [link]

  39. #399
    f.k.a Oprah sbbds's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    TIM
    SLE
    Posts
    2,181
    Mentioned
    151 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    @ajsindri What did your school’s psych faculty say? Did they say they’d let you use their lab?

    I meant concluding that side of things, like figuring out everything you’d need to carry the experiments out.

    I’d be willing to help towards that, or anything after you guys have secured all that.

  40. #400
    ajsindri's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    TIM
    IEI
    Posts
    511
    Mentioned
    70 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sbbds View Post
    @ajsindri What did your school’s psych faculty say? Did they say they’d let you use their lab?

    I meant concluding that side of things, like figuring out everything you’d need to carry the experiments out.

    I’d be willing to help towards that, or anything after you guys have secured all that.
    They are only interested in helping me analyze data, not the theory. They said most graduate PhDs focus on only one or two factors. If you did a proper test of Model A, not with dichotomy abstractions, you would have 8 functions x 8 information element = 64 combinations, which is way too much for any person to do on their own. That's one reason it would be so good to have a way to synthesize many people's individual projects into the most compelling application of socionics.
    Check out my socionics work [link]

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •